big pig peaches:I don't know how things work over in Europe, but in the US construction crews and emergency workers use extra utility lighting regardless of the street lights.

I think the headline is implying that the cost of the energy used by the investigation scene lighting outweighs the cost of the energy of the highway lights, because there are so many more accidents than before.

So, if I'm reading TFA right, the problem isn't that there are more accidents, but that the unions made them hire special contractors who charge hefty fees to turn some farking lights on at the accident scenes that happen anyway.

So, the cleanup crew that gets sent out to the accident scene needs light to do their work. So they have to call the light turner oners, who come out and turn the lights on. But having the lights always be on would be cheaper than paying the light turner oner.

And apparently nobody has considered allowing the cleanup crews to turn the lights on themselves? I guess because the security to prevent members of the general public from flicking a light switch on and off rapidly (oh, ask your dad about how much more expensive that is) is too complicated and you have to be properly trained in the toggle mechanism they use?

It's kind of amazing how overcomplicated the act of turning lights on has become.

"According to Rijkswaterstaat, the contractors assigned to manually switch on highway lights are asking for hefty fees."

For those who didn't read TFA, it says the cost is from contractors who have to MANUALLY turn on the lights if there's an accident. The really gloss over this.... While I think the lights are necessary for safety, the article and the headline are completely misleading, making it sound like just the fact that there are accident crews is where the increased cost comes from.

TFA says no such thing about accident numbers - only that people (old folks in particular) are biatching about the lack of lighting.

As somebody who drives to work in the pre-dawn hours, I can't farking stand most street lighting. There's way too much of it and most of it is terribly designed. I thought the idea was to improve visibility, not blind me. Shine the farking light down on the road, not into my eyes.

I can see a hell of a lot better with just the headlights, without all that extraneous sideways lighting making me hinky.

And when it's foggy out? That's what the white line on the side of the road is for. It's called a FOG LINE, chrissakes. If you can't see anything else you can follow the fog line, long as you don't drive like a jackass.

Don't get me started on the traffic lights that turn red at empty intersections with nobody around in a two-mile radius.

If you want to be more secure,1) put the light on the ground where you want it and so you will have more light for your money2) reduce the glare for anyone looking at your property by not shining your light in their eyes.

Nothing burns me more than seeing a giant light shining right at me from a mile away; first, I can't see if anyone was there under your light or not, and second, you are wasting most of the light that could actually go to light up your ground around your building. Duh. It is costing you, so that makes me feel a little better because you deserve it, but you are dumb, use a cutoff fixture, they don't actually cost more these days.

DarkVader:Mikey1969: rev. dave: There needs to be a compromise between safety and light pollution. The costs are minor.

With a working Observatory in town, Flagstaff, AZ has the 3rd strongest light pollution regulations in the world, and it still works well. It was interesting to look at commercial blueprints and see all of the light restrictions and requirements. Part of the solution is the orange tinted lights that make everything look black and white.

Flagstaff is weirdly dark.

And with that light color, they might as well just turn it off. I think they're using LPS, and it's the worst light available. One of the reasons I miss mercury vapor and really look forward to LED, because the HPS lights most commonly used today have horrific color rendition.

Well, that's why it's dark. Lowell Observatory is still getting used, although not as much.

The streetlights work, though. You get used to the color thing, and it's bright enough to see as you go through the parking lot of the grocery store, as well as noticing the drunk Navajo approaching your open Jeep with a knife in his hand(weird story that happened one night). They work well, and are probably still a better solution than LEDs, since in my experience you have to do a lot of extra stuff to make the things focus light decently at all, and the floodlights are just too washed out, so some kind of focus is really needed...

LEDs or lot, Flag has a good approach and they found a good middle ground.

If you aren't going to turn those lights on, then there isn't any point in installing them in the first place. That should save a few million.

And who cares about the idiots who have wrecks? Do people who have wrecks vote? Do they have a lobby? Do they hand bags of money to politicians? Is there any reason for politicians to give a fark about those people?

Ever get the feeing that most of this country is just in the kitchen boiling some Ramen with an LED light and hoping the landlord knocking can't tell they're home while they rifle the cushions for bus fare?

Gulper Eel: That's what the white line on the side of the road is for. It's called a FOG LINE, chrissakes.

I learned something new today! Yaaaay.

Don't get me started on the traffic lights that turn red at empty intersections with nobody around in a two-mile radius.

I once watched a cop sit at a red light (T-intersection, probably 3 AM) for almost five minutes because I guess he was trying to be a good example to us, as we were right behind him. Finally he got fed up and made his turn. Apparently that one didn't have a sensor at the time on the side road. I'm so glad I found out about the triggers for those things, through Fark IIRC, because where I live now, you basically have to trip the damn things on purpose to have any hope of getting through some of the traffic lights.

There's an odd little two-step waltz that all 4:00am drivers know... You pull up to the sensor... you pull back... you pull up to the sensor, you wait.

BummerDuck:I guess the simple answer, don't drive in the dark if you can't handle it, didn't occur to all the idiots? oh, right, of course not.

Of course it did. Do you think lighted roads came before vehicles? They were added to assist people who couldn't drive in the dark - the same as most inventions. A technology was created to give opportunity to those who previously did not have it.

If the final answer to "OH YOU CAN'T DO THAT" was "THEN DON'T", the world would pretty much suck. Well, suck more.

I guess the simple answer, don't drive in the dark if you can't handle it, didn't occur to all the idiots? oh, right, of course not.

Just think of all the people that live far away from lighted roads, and somehow, magically, make it to their destinations without running into a damn thing. Well, except for deer and other suicidal wildlife.

I've seen those installed in built up areas when the buried wiring for the streetlights would need to be dug up. Screw any notions of taking years to pay back on the electric bills, they didn't have to tear up everything. That was a win.

Fano:Question for Cecil Adams: Why do we never see people changing out the lightbulbs? I'm sure it doesn't take long, but there are lots of lights, so you should expect to see a crew out somewhere at some time. Just like you never saw people collecting money from payphones.

In most municipalities they are group relamped at set intervals once every few years. The reason being all of the lights are on similar hours so all the lamps are nearing end of life at about the same time. You don't see the crews because it's normally done in the middle of the day when most of us are at work, and you'd have to be out driving around on that one day in 2-4 years that crews are out there.

In downtown and residential areas they will usually spot relamp if someone calls in a failure.

lack of warmth:Also, installing more lighting around all places at night in a crime busy city is helpful in somewhat deterring crime. It doesn't really stop it, but at least you can watch the crooks killing someone.

Much so-called security lighting is designed with little thought for how eyes-or criminals-operate. Marcus Felson, a professor at the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has concluded that lighting is effective in preventing crime mainly if it enables people to notice criminal activity as it's taking place, and if it doesn't help criminals to see what they're doing. Bright, unshielded floodlights-one of the most common types of outdoor security lighting in the country-often fail on both counts, as do all-night lights installed on isolated structures or on parts of buildings that can't be observed by passersby (such as back doors). A burglar who is forced to use a flashlight, or whose movement triggers a security light controlled by an infrared motion sensor, is much more likely to be spotted than one whose presence is masked by the blinding glare of a poorly placed metal halide "wall pack." In the early seventies, the public-school system in San Antonio, Texas, began leaving many of its school buildings, parking lots, and other property dark at night and found that the no-lights policy not only reduced energy costs but also dramatically cut vandalism.

A lot of the new LED based street lighting can use a part night setup where the lights stay on but dim to about half power after peak hours when there is little traffic. It can save considerable energy without sacrificing safety. With few cars on the road you don't have to compete with the light from all the tail lights.

Enigmamf:big pig peaches: I don't know how things work over in Europe, but in the US construction crews and emergency workers use extra utility lighting regardless of the street lights.

I think the headline is implying that the cost of the energy used by the investigation scene lighting outweighs the cost of the energy of the highway lights, because there are so many more accidents than before.

The article says it is the cost of contractors who have to come out to turn the lights on. Just give rescue workers the ability to turn the lights on. Problem solved.